[37] It is important here to note, first, that Roger Bacon was an Aristotelian through his intimate study of the Arabian treatises on the Greek philosopher, and, secondly, that although Greek speculation was governed more by insight than experience, Aristotle forms a striking exception to this rule.
[38] G. E., p. 210: "What is lacking in England, and has always been lacking, that half-actor and rhetorician knew well enough, the absurd muddle-head Carlyle, who sought to conceal under passionate grimaces what he knew about himself: namely, what was lacking in Carlyle—real power of intellect, real depth of intellectual perception, in short, philosophy."
[39] In reply to those who said, "Nothing exists in the intellect but what has before existed in the senses," Leibnitz replied: "Yes, nothing but the intellect."
[40] Kritische Geschichte der Æsthetik (1872). Speaking of the English Æstheticians, he says (p. 285), "The fact that there is no decrease, but rather an increase of Materialism in their thought, no purification in their meditation from the coarseness of experience, but rather a gradual immersion in the same, may also be regarded as characteristic of the development of the English spirit in general."
[41] Coventry Patmore, Principles in Art, p. 209.
[42] G. E., p. 213.
[43] Even J. S. Mill saw the flaw in his own teaching in this respect, and acknowledged it openly. See his Liberty, chapter "The Elements of Well-Being," paragraph 13.